I’ve just realized that I may not be a very good reviewer.While good reviewers are able to word their prose so as to seem quite
technically adept without the benefit of comprehension, their greater
virtue lies in the ability to go nuts over the latest novel, shiny object that
gets sent their way.Perhaps I
never will know greatness as a writer. I haven’t the energy for such
fickle impressions.

Okay, somewhat seriously, have you ever noticed that
while many imply an unbiased perspective and position of authoritative
conclusions, the vast majority of product reviews render overwhelmingly
positive conclusions, stated, sometimes, in those most embarrassing hyperbole?It’s a fact, and I’m probably almost as guilty as the next hack.

There are several reasons for this
that I’ve noticed:

Reviewers
depend heavily on manufacturers and their rep firms for product samples.Because of this, it’s not uncommon for reviewers to not publish
negative reviews out of courtesy, or simply to avoid the aggravation of
what might follow.It sounds
like a coward’s way out, but it happens, and considering that most
people want to read positive reviews to reinforce existing opinions, as
opposed to collecting a variety of perspectives, negative subjective
observations are rarely taken as seriously as positive ones.Besides, like mama said, if you can’t say anything nice . . . . I’ve yet to take this route (blame my mother, but don’t tell
her about it), but I can understand it as practical under some
circumstances.

Audio/Video
media, be it printed or electronic, depends very heavily on advertisers,
primarily the audio/video industry itself.Although I’ve never been pressured to give a good
review for the sake of a buck at Secrets, there have been publications
that admitted a no-negative publication policy.In other words, bad reviews are bad for business.Lucky for us we don’t make much money anyway.

The
third, which applies to me as much as I can help it, is that many
reviewers have some say as to what comes their way.Since a thorough evaluation requires quite a bit of time and
effort, these privileged noblemen (HA!) take pains to see that they end up
reviewing that which they will most likely enjoy.In other words, we try to review only what we want to play with.Speaking for myself, I simply don’t have the time, energy, or the
inclination to go around granting free trial periods of my time.I already have to steal a couple hours here and there to flatter my
ego with a review or feature article.One might say, “Well, that’s your job!”That person may pursue that particular job description, and I’ll
do this.If somebody appreciates my effort, terrific.If not, at least we didn’t waste any trees.In my own defense, I try to only apply praise as warranted, and do
so in proportion.It’s not
a good way to get quotes in printed advertisements of the products we
review, but I hope that it
adds value for the person who actually invests the time to read the
review.If I’m not jumping up and down, it’s not because the
product isn’t as good as another that received preposterous accolades
from others, but rather that I’m just really tired.

This review will not be a departure
from my characteristically sunny disposition.RBH earned my silly grin, and I’m not about to hide it out of some
misplaced sense of dignity.My
impressions of these speakers were positive from the beginning, even before
the review set arrived.If I
didn’t have a notion that they’d have done well, I wouldn’t have asked
for them.Should they have
happened to just suck upon arrival, despite my efforts cull the herd, I’d
probably quit right there out of laziness and offer “the courtesy of not
publishing a negative review” as an excuse.I know, I know, I’m a horrible, poor excuse of a reviewer, actually
admitting that, almost as bad as the mainstream vecks who tow the line for the
man.Well, sorry for my low moral
standards.

Not to get on a negative kick, because thankfully I’ve
become a great judge of character, or at least had the benefit of a little
history.

Way back when, before I became so wise and wizened, I
encountered RBH through aprior
product review with Secrets, RBH MC
Series Package 5 Loudspeaker System, October, 1999.JJ set me up by, “Hey, want to review some speakers that use
all metal drivers?”Sure, what
the heck.I was young then,
conceivably had a few spare hours over the next couple months, felt a little
reckless, high on Vance Dickason’s latest “Loudspeaker Design Cookbook,”
so I went for it.

Metal drivers, eh?I’d
heard a lot of dogma regarding the supposed unilateral superiority of metal
drivers, and while I admit that they do have particular advantages in terms
of stiffness to weight ratio, as always, it’s the quality of the whole design that
determines the end result.In
short, I was primed to rip into some meat if the goods didn’t pass
inspection. But the little buggers won me over.Not only did they sound nice, they were genuinely respectable,
and when I found out how much they cost, I had to inhale.

Fast-forward to last winter’s Consumer Electronics
Show (January, 2001).I finally met the people
behind the product, one of whom was Darren Egan.I have this unsupported, unscientific hypothesis that good people
build good products.At the show, I
conceded to Mr. Egan that the MC series package they had sent me was up to par, and he then introduced me to what RBH could do without the constraints
of size or cost - the Titus model from Status Acoustics (their cost-no-object
line) - really big, really gorgeous towers.My Lord, sweet, precise, and bottom octave majesty to turn
non-believers into cream cheese.My
opinion of Mr. Egan rose an order or magnitude over the space of 5 minutes.“Want to review a pair of those?” he asked.“Uh, well, if I had a place to put them, but I don’t, and if they
fell onto somebody . . . .”Did
I mention two kids, two dogs, two cats, two snakes, and occasional relatives
of all sizes in addition to the old lady (old used of course as the
euphemism for spiritish, sexy, and always endearing, lady implying high
character) and myself?

Fast forward some more, past some confusion about what
models, how many, and to whom, and we have this collection, the same basic
series as my first meeting, but different models, save the center channel,
arriving at my house quite some time later, eventually prodding me to get on
with my promise.Some promises
are a pleasure to keep, even a year after the fact.

Now, On With the Show

It seems, now, appropriate to proceed
to the part of the recipe where I get into a
quick overview of our subjects, front to back, top to bottom, inside, out, and
so forth.

All of the MC series are available glossy white, black,
or beautiful cherry veneers.The
veneer quality approaches the best I’ve seen, regardless of price, not only
with a pleasant sheen, but a seamless skin.I noticed that the veneer is applied a little more carefully than the
review set of yore, though those weren’t shabby either.The overall build quality of the cabinets matches the
finishing - quite solid, with enough heft to hurt somebody.In this price range, such a level of craftsmanship is rare.

Rear connections on the combination are high-quality
gold-plated binding posts, beefier than normally found on most speakers, and a
nice touch.Dual-sets of binding
posts with supplied shorting straps offer bi-wiring/bi-amping options as well.

Aside from the aluminum diaphragms, the drivers in any of
the speakers don’t look particularly exotic, but good drivers don’t need to.Most of what makes a driver good or bad for a particular use isn’t
visibly obvious.You can see the
aluminum cones, and we know that aluminum can be stiff and light, which sounds
entirely like a good thing, but the success of implementing the metal
diaphragm depends on other parameters.For
instance, since metal is stiff, it bends less easily, but it still bends.What we really want to avoid is vibration, which will be inverse to the
damping of the driver's diaphragm.What
the stiffness really does is push the frequency at which the cone will start
to “break up” and ring (vibrate) higher, hopefully out of the operating
range of that driver, so that the designer might easily avoid the vibration of
the diaphragm with the crossover, implying that stiff cones often reap the
benefits of steep crossover slopes by simply avoiding cone vibration
altogether.However, if not
carefully damped and/or the crossover does not adequately attenuate output in
the range where the cone will eventually exhibit vibration, certain very stiff
cones, regardless of composition, can exhibit some very nasty breakup
characteristics, the subjective quality of which will depend on the
personality of the driver, but in all cases are undesirable for the sake of
transparency. In other words, because the metal cone resembles a bell in
composition and shape, it can ring like one.

My point, although the rubber surround of all the woofers
most likely contributes to decent damping of any standing waves on the cone,
is that just looking at the cone doesn’t tell you so much.I could go further and say that listening to the typical sales pitch
about “proprietary techniques” that accompany the presentation of most
speakers isn’t very useful either, but we can’t get into that now.I could go on a tirade about senselessly over-built magnet assemblies,
built to impress visually or on a spec sheet, that simply spill their magnetic
fields into the environment and do nothing to improve performance, but I’ll
stop there.All I’m saying is that impressive-looking doesn’t equate to
impressive-sounding, and that any general statement about technology usually
carries a bunch of qualifying statements to keep that statement true.

The drivers are, for what it’s worth, very
pretty.In fact, I enjoyed
staring at their soft glow so much that I left the grilles off.Then my niece decided to help “break in” one of the
woofers by putting big dents into it, several times, with God knows what.After we had a little conversation, without any crying I might add, and
RBH generously supplied a unit to swap out, the grilles stayed on for the
remainder of the stay. If she does it again, she gets a “Pow Pow!” (just kidding).

The tweeters have a feature usually found in in-wall
designs: the pivot.Not only does
the pivot allow the user to aim the tweeter at a listener from non-optimal
placement, but it also allows the listener to modify the radiation pattern and
frequency response of the treble, optimal speaker placement or not, to tweak
the loudspeaker's response to taste.I
never thought to engage in subjective alteration of the sound until Joe
Hageman, a big-shot PR guy, suggested it.Go figure, a marketing guy with something useful to say?Like I said, an exception to every rule.

The MC-6C and MC-6CT look identical if you only pay
attention to the first 12" from the top, each sporting a 6 ½” woofer
to complement the same pivoting tweeter.What the MC-6CT offers and the MC-6C lacks, aside from the tower-style
cabinet, are two additional woofers that operate below 100 Hz.Interestingly, the specified low-end cutoff for the Tower version
lies only a few Hz lower than the MC-6C’s specified low-end range of 50 Hz.I should note that the specifications are deceiving in that regard.

The MC-414C has at least one of the same parents as
its brothers, except that it uses an MTM arrangement (this means two midrange
drivers <M> with a tweeter <T> in the middle for <MTM>) in order to provide a
slim profile with smaller 4” mid-bass drivers, while still maintaining
similar output capabilities.Even
with itty-bitty 4” drivers, this center channel’s no wimp.I usually have concerns about center-channel speakers using MTM driver
arrays, as horizontal lobing (getting loud, then soft, then loud, then soft,
as you move side-to-side) immediately comes to mind, but in the case of the
MC-414C, it didn’t seem to be very much of a problem with most theatrical
material in social settings.Perhaps
because
the drivers are so small, and the acoustic centers of the two woofers are
closer than other MTM arrangements due to the smaller diameters, the decreased
acoustic distance between drivers and the small cone diameters alleviates the
horizontal nasties that many MTM center channels suffer.The dual 4” woofers in the MTM array won’t have as even a
horizontal dispersion as they would have were the woofers mounted right next
to each other, or better yet above each other, but when you get right down to
it, I’m the only one in the house who really cares that much, and the middle
is MY spot.For those who want a
really even horizontal dispersion, the MC-414C is small enough to turn on end
in most situations.

All of the above “full-range” speakers use a sealed
alignment (no port or passive radiator), while the subwoofer opts for
bass-reflex (two ports 3” in diameter and 13 ½” long) tuned to 27 Hz.I mentioned earlier with the first MC series review that there’s some
sense with this philosophy of different alignments for different tasks.Bass-reflex systems really get advantageous at the very bottom of the
audio range.

While many manufacturers use ports for the cheap increase
in extension that they can provide smaller speakers, the port has compromises below
its operating range, particularly in that the drivers will begin to
“unload” much below the tuned frequency, so that low-frequency input will
cause the cone to move dramatically but with very little acoustic output.
Since the output of the port starts to equal that of the cone but in the
opposite direction as frequency falls below the tuned point, it can result in
greater distortion, as well as the sharper 24 dB/octave roll-off, compared to
the relatively mild 12 dB/octave roll-off of sealed systems.
Because a small speaker will rarely have the capacity to voice the
lowest octave, it becomes very likely that it will see substantial content
below its tuned frequency with most full-range signals, and suffer more
than its sealed counterpart when fed any dynamic low-end content.

When it comes to a subwoofer, or for that
matter a truly full-range speaker, a port becomes much more potentially
beneficial, with less in terms of drawbacks.Not only does it extend the frequency range available within the given
box size/efficiency parameters and lower distortion by “loading” the cone
at and above the tuned frequency, thus minimizing cone excursion and
distortion, but because of the low tuned frequency inherent to the
requirements of voicing the lowest frequencies, it becomes unlikely that the
woofer will ever see substantial content in the range where the port would
become of greatest liability.

The
RBH TS-12AP subwoofer, in addition
to the 180 watt amplifier inside, offers a variety of adjustments and hookup
options, including line-level inputs and outputs, a phase reversal switch, an
Off/Auto Sense/On switch, variable low-pass crossover frequency, and level
adjustment. Oh, I almost forgot the most important part. The power
cord is of the IEC detachable variety, allowing the user to substitute the
ridiculously expensive after-market cable of choice.

All this conjecture equates to technical nonsense
when you get past the hypothetical, because the proof is in the pudding,
pounding, or whatever metaphor you like.

While a theoretically ideal loudspeaker remains utterly
neutral, real physics requires loudspeakers with different design approaches
to come in different sonic flavors.That’s
just reality.If you don’t like
the physics, then yell at a physicist about it.

I’ll blow my load right now and say that the MC series
are not simply Titus’ in smaller boxes for less money.Not only would that be untrue, by my fellow staff at Secrets
would change the club handshake without telling me.The Titus’ at the show exhibited a level of refinement,
precision, and poise that few can even approach.

I would say, however, that there is one parameter where
the MC series has preserved a good deal of the performance found in its more
elaborate cousins: midrange clarity.

Generally speaking, as a group, the
current RBH review set reminds
me a little of the venerable and classic Yamaha NS-1000s, the big, big,
adopted brothers of the NS-10s that dominate the professional
near-field monitor mass market.The
NS-1000s, using a beryllium dome midrange driver, have a mid-band clarity
and dynamic presence that I have often found exhilarating.Similarly, the MC series follows suit along these lines, with their
own angle.The midrange
presentation of the MC series is very clear and articulate, with an excitement
and drive that makes the listener lean forward into the music or soundtrack,
and drag out recordings from storage to hear what life can be pulled from old
favorites.To say it modestly, I
enjoyed this facet immensely, almost to guilt, except that I don't subscribe
to guilt as such for philosophical reasons.

For instance, though I enjoy the implementation of reverb
(laid out spectacularly by the MC-6C and MC-6CT’s ample reproduction of
depth and spaciousness within the soundstage), throughout Sting’s “Brand
New Day” CD, his vocals can sometimes get a little buried in the mix with
some loudspeakers.RBH’s MC
family brought him forward without a hitch.Vocal
enunciation, crisp and exact, was simply beautiful, with perhaps a bit of bite
at the upper midrange or lower treble.These
guys aren’t shy, and I don’t slight them for that.

I think that when RBH decided on which direction to swing
in their design choices, they voiced the speaker towards peppy as opposed to
leaning towards inoffensive but dull (I'm sure glad someone invented
adjectives way back when).I
applaud their judgment.Given an
option between the two, I’d go with the first almost every time.Nevertheless, while this can bestow fabulous results through matching
equipment and source material carefully, I imagine some listeners, with some
electronics, might find the quality somewhat over-the-top.As someone used to the generally smoother response of soft-dome
tweeters, I initially found the extra zip of the aluminum tweeters a little
pretentious.Hold on though!After
some play time listening, adjusting location, and fiddling with the pivot of
the tweeters, in the end aiming the tweeters away from me, while keeping the
midrange driver aimed dead on, the zip and spice mellowed out to a palatable
cinnamon, as opposed the habanero I first bit into (a California hot pepper of
renown) - quite enjoyable with a
lot of music, even enticing.Once
settled in, sibilance still remained pronounced, but didn’t fatigue.A little sizzle, but no searing.With
some time, patience, and experimentation, these speakers sound very nice
indeed.

An example of where the MC-6CTs combined with
the TS-12AP excelled is Morphine’s “Cure for Pain” album.The dynamic exuberance of the MC-6CTs, combined with the bottom-end umph
of the TS-12AP, let the bass jump on its own, distinguishing the
attack from decay without confusion, while taking the room with it in the
aftermath.

If I might revisit the “Brand New Day” album, what
also struck me about the MC-6CTs was not only the sheer expansiveness of
the soundstage, but the way that the set didn’t unilaterally expand every
sound to do it, rather letting many an image rest between or near the
speakers, with a very definite presence, exhibiting a great deal of spatial
contrast

I quickly switched out the tower versions for the
MC-6Cs, and to their credit, they maintained much of the same sonic
characteristics.However, I did
notice that some of the lower midrange body and impact lacked in comparison to
their tower counterparts, no matter how I tried to compensate with the
subwoofer.Not to make a sweeping
generalization, but in this specific case it seems that the tower versions
might edge out their smaller relatives in ways more than just a few Hertz on
the spec sheet.Not to presume,
but if, by coincidence, you’re wavering between the two models for left and
right channels, let me push you in the direction of the towers, and by all
means, get the sub too.

I watch Disney movies A LOT.To be honest, I like most of them.
"Toy Story" is probably one of my favorites, in terms of not only the
story, but the sound track.The MC series, led by the MC-414C, and supported by the
muscular TS-12AP, took off like a bus on nitro-methane.The basic character of the speakers in general benefited the
intelligibility of dialogue, and their dynamic disposition brought the most
demanding sound effects to life like a firecracker.

In fact, a movie which I’ll soon get sick of, “Fly
Away Home” had a scene in the beginning with a bull-dozer.Unlike nuclear explosions, the sound of heavy machinery is
something that most of us city folk have a real reference for.The TS-12APportrayed the sheer immensity and size of
that hulking machine without flinching, causing my eyes to shift nervously
around the room and consider how different a real bull-dozer just outside my
house would sound. A little, but not too much.

Going back to music, I should say that I really like low
frequency content.Not in the
bloated, ridiculously exaggerated context that we often experience with
typical demonstrations geared to show off subwoofers, but simply the
additional presence and space that low frequencies allow a recording to
convey.While the TS-12APdidn’t
stay as taught as one of my so far favorite commercially available home
auditions, M&K’s MX-700s, the output always remained clean, controlled,
and offered a fair amount of subtlety as well.To the TS-12AP‘s credit, it could pound harder for less money.Most importantly, so long as you set the TS-12AP up correctly, it
didn’t sound like a sub, but just seemed to provide the bass that would otherwise
be lacking.Although its strongest
points, in my opinion, lie in its considerable brawn, the TS-12AP also
qualifies as a very acceptable subwoofer from a “musical” standpoint.There’s a bit of deft with that heft, so to speak.Make no mistake, this “little guy” is a gem.

Now, I couldn’t retain “Cool Reviewer Guy” status
if I don’t pipe out some pesky comment to balance out what would otherwise
be an entirely positive review.I
mean, yeah, I think the package as a whole performs extremely well, and I hope
that I can leave that impression as the dominating thought.However, if I went completely bananas over the MC
series, what incentive would I leave RBH to let me borrow something from their
Signature series, or God help me, Status Acoustics?

So, here it goes.If
I could put in an order form for a couple of unreasonable requests, I’d ask
that they refine the treble to the level of their more expensive speakers
without compromising the detail, presence, or dynamic and spatial contrasts
that the speakers excel at.I’d
also ask that the subwoofer take on the greater dexterity that the Titus’
exhibited, along with the utterly sick deep bass extension (as opposed to the
simply impressive low-bass output that the TS-12AP already possesses), without
sacrificing the unabashed slamming ease that the TS-12AP exudes.While you’re at it, don’t raise the cost at all, because the build
quality in exchange for the asking price embarrasses a lot of the competition,
and if you could hold the line on the price tag, that aspect could only get
better!In short, give me the
world in exchange for a penny.
Unreasonable, yes, but my career demands it.

Conclusion

All in all, I’d have to say that the MC set, as is,
made me a pretty happy camper, and I have no doubt they could do the same for
others.If you’re one of those
people who seeks other motivated individuals who do everything as if it were
the spice of life itself, or just want to listen to some nice speakers, pay
attention to these ‘uns.You
might have more fun than with a bathtub full of chocolate syrup.Perhaps not, but it’ll be worth the effort either way.